rocky_create_outletCreates a Rocky outlet on a specified surface to define where particles exit the simulation domain. Provide the surface ID to establish the exit point.
Create a Rocky outlet on a surface.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| surface_id | Yes | Identifier of the surface acting as the exit point. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. For a creation/mutation tool, it does not disclose side effects, whether the outlet is auto-connected, required surface state, or failure conditions; the output schema only covers return values, not this behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it is terse enough that it leaves important usage and behavioral context unstated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and several related sibling tools, the description is incomplete: it omits prerequisites, relationship to inlet/connect tools, and side effects. Output schema existence reduces the need to explain return values, but not behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so surface_id is already well documented as the exit-point surface identifier. The description's phrase "on a surface" reinforces that but adds no syntax or formatting detail beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: create a Rocky outlet on a surface. It is clear enough to distinguish this from most sibling tools, but it does not explicitly contrast with rocky_create_inlet or rocky_connect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It does not say when to use an outlet versus an inlet, when connection is needed, or what prerequisites must exist. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.